Purpose
Unequal workplace gender outcomes continue to motivate research. Using the prism of work-life-(im)balance, the purpose of this paper is to show how identity salience and motivation contribute to a subject position that for many reproduces socially gendered practices of workplaces.
Design/methodology/approach
After initial inductive computer-assisted text analysis, the authors innovatively move to deductively analyse data from focus group and semi-structured interviews of 18 female and 19 male Australian managers in the financial and government sectors.
Findings
The authors find that a gendered sense of reflexivity is virtually non-existent among the female Australian managers and professionals interviewed in this research. The inductive stage of critical discourse analysis revealed a substantial difference between men and women in two concepts, responsibility, and choice. These form the axes of the typological model to better explain how non-reflexive gendered workplace practices are “performed”.
Practical implications
This empirical research provides a foundation for understanding the role of choice and responsibility in work-home patterns for women.
Social implications
The absence of a reflexive gender-based understanding of women’s work-home choice is explained in Bourdieusian terms.
Originality/value
By not specifically using a gender lens, the authors have avoided the stereotypical understanding of gendered workplaces.
